Tom Hone for their help in shaping the essay and chronology. The chronology also proposes that most calls for reform have been related to one or more of four themes: the degree of civilian control of the military with the advent of new warfighting capabilities business management, acquisition, efficiency, effectiveness, and cost savings ġ The authors would like to thank Peter Swartz, Curtis Utz, Steven Wills, and Dr. Often, the problems that exhaustive reform efforts attempted to redress persisted despite the best efforts of Congress, the Navy, and other defense officials. The chronology suggests that after the significant reform effort that culminated with the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (PL 99-433), hereafter referred to as the Goldwater-Nichols Act, a large number of other legislative remedies were necessary to address the unintended consequences of the original legislation. When possible, the authors have provided online references to encourage further investigation into detailed aspects of defense and Navy reform. The chronology, which is not meant to be definitive, captures nearly 200 defense and Navy reform-related events since 1798. By necessity, it includes an examination of the Chief of Naval Operations’ (CNO) advisory role and the relationship between the Navy and the Department of Defense after 1947. The chronology places defense and Navy organizational and institutional reform in the context of major historical challenges to the service and the nation. This paper and the attached chronology summarize defense reform and changes in the Navy’s roles and authorities from 1798 through early 2012.